
Grenfell Tower Was a Death Trap. Some Wanted It to Stand as a Warning.
Rayner said the demolition would be carried out methodically over two years behind the protective wrapping. Parts of the tower, and material from it, will be preserved so they can become part of a future memorial. The carefully worded statement, issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government, tried to navigate the emotional crosscurrents of the debate.
Advertisement
'The tower was the home of the 72 innocent people who lost their lives, and of survivors whose lives were forever changed,' the statement said. 'It is clear from conversations it remains a sacred site. It is also clear that there is not a consensus about what should happen to it.'
The government might well have been alluding to the reaction after Rayner's meeting with survivors and families of the victims when she informed them of the decision. One of the groups, Grenfell United, accused her of ignoring their views and claimed there was little support in the room for tearing it down.
Karim Mussilhy, whose uncle, Hesham Rahman, perished in the fire, said the government had short-circuited the debate by asserting — wrongly, he claimed — that there was no alternative to demolishing the building completely.
Advertisement
'There's no reason the tower needs to come all the way down,' Mussilhy said. 'There are parts of it that can remain forever.'
But another group, Grenfell Next of Kin, said the focus should be on a memorial rather than preserving the blackened remains of the building. 'Do we wish the whole tower could stand forever? Yes. Is that an option? Not from a structural point of view,' the group said. 'Do we need a way forward? Yes.'
Although the building had been reinforced after the fire with thousands of props, structural engineers warned that it would continue to deteriorate. The government said that preserving multiple floors did not make sense from an engineering point of view. Even preserving a smaller number of floors, it said, would raise issues of equity with the families of victims.
'It would not be fair to keep some floors of the building that are significant to some families, whilst not being able to do so for others and knowing that, for some, this would be deeply upsetting,' the statement said.
Some have argued that the building should be preserved because it is, in effect, a crime scene. The public inquiry concluded that the disaster was caused by unscrupulous manufacturers who supplied cheap, flammable cladding, which turned the tower into an inferno after it caught fire in the early hours of June 14, 2017.
The inquiry's report also blamed the Conservative-led local council, which was eager to cut costs, as well as acquiescent contractors and the architecture firm that oversaw the 2015 renovation of the 24-floor building. Originally constructed in 1972, Grenfell Tower became a Brutalist landmark, near some of London's most upscale neighborhoods.
Advertisement
In its statement, the government said it had consulted police, the coroner's office, and the office of the public inquiry, all of which said they had what they needed to pursue investigations of the fire. The Metropolitan Police may not bring the first criminal charges in the case until 2027.
'These conversations are not about who's right or who's wrong,' said Edward T. Linenthal, an emeritus professor of history at Indiana University, who has advised memorial commissions on how to honor victims of terror attacks and mass shootings. 'It's about whose sensibilities you choose to honor and why.'
In the case of Grenfell Tower, he said, the unresolved quest for justice adds another layer of complexity: While the fire was an accident, not an attack, unlike in Oklahoma City or on Sept. 11, 2001, it has some of the same qualities.
'When there's malfeasance of any kind involved — loose wiring, class issues, poor regulation by authorities — that adds a sharpness to it,' Linenthal said. 'People died there who weren't supposed to. Whatever they decide to do, it has to take time, and it has to be done carefully.'
Among the proposals for a memorial are a garden and a monument that would reach into the sky. Last month, the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission named a shortlist of five candidates to submit designs. It hopes to choose a winning team by the end of the summer and submit a detailed plan by the end of 2026.
In its ruined state, with the green hearts and the phrase 'Grenfell, Forever in Our Hearts,' stamped at the top of the wrapped building, Grenfell Tower has become a different kind of landmark — a symbol of social inequality and the costs of rampant deregulation. To some, it is even a source of solace.
Advertisement
'Being able to see the tower every day helps some people continue to feel close to those they lost,' the government said. 'For others, it is a painful reminder of what happened and is having a daily impact on some members of the community.'
This article originally appeared in
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
When is the spending review and what might Rachel Reeves announce?
All eyes are on the Treasury this week as Rachel Reeves is set to lay out her spending review to Parliament on Wednesday. She'll announce the Government's day-to-day spending commitments up to 2028-29, and investment spending plans to 2029-30 – but there have been varying reports of what we can expect. Here, Telegraph Money takes you through what we know and what the plans could mean for you. Spending reviews take place every few years, and it is when the Government lays out all spending that can be reasonably planned. The plans account for around 40pc of all public spending, according to the House of Commons Library, with the rest dependent on demands such as the benefits bill. The last multi-year spending review was in 2021 under Boris Johnson's Conservative administration. In the run-up to the review, government departments have been in negotiations with the Treasury to try to secure as much funding as they can. The current review process was launched in December last year, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said it could be 'one of the most significant domestic policy events of this parliament'. However, Ms Reeves has warned that 'not every department will get everything that they want', as she has had to 'say no' to things that she would support in an ideal world. Many departments are expecting a real-terms cut in their funding. The Government previously said that the review is 'zero-based', meaning that decisions will be made based on an assessment of spending line by line, rather than an overall increase or decrease to the current budget. The Chancellor will stand up in the House of Commons on Wednesday June 11 after Prime Minister's Questions, at roughly 12.30pm. Once Ms Reeves has finished speaking the review will be published on the government website, along with any accompanying documents. Some government spending plans have already been announced. Last week, Reeves announced £15.6bn of funding for regional transport, and the Government has confirmed a partial U-turn on the decision to remove winter fuel payments from all but the poorest pensioners. The Treasury has today announced that nine million pensioners will receive winter fuel payments this winter as a result. It has also been reported that the Chancellor will focus on three priorities in the spending review: health, security and the economy. This means spending on the NHS, defence and infrastructure, with Home Secretary Yvette Cooper understood to be putting in a final plea for more police funding. There are also suggestions that the two-child benefit cap may be lifted, and schools are understood to be in line for £4.5bn uplift. Funding these plans may be tricky, however. Ms Reeves has confirmed she will be sticking to the Government's non-negotiable fiscal rules on borrowing. At the same time, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said 'momentum is weakening' in the economy, as they told Ms Reeves that efforts to cut government borrowing must be 'stepped up'. If more borrowing is off the table, it may mean cuts for some departments. The IFS has warned that 'because headline real growth rates [over the period] are relatively modest, sharp trade-offs are unavoidable. Achieving stated objectives in some areas will likely require real-terms cuts elsewhere.' Deutsche Bank is a little more optimistic. In a recent analyst note Sanjay Raja, senior economist, said the bank is seeing more 'resilience than expected' in the UK economy, and their forecasts for growth until the end of 2027 currently sit above the consensus. But, in short, Reeves still needs to find more money. No, there will be no tax rises in the spending review on Wednesday. As tax increases demand new legislation through a finance bill, we won't hear about any changes until the Budget in the autumn – but there is already speculation that any additional spending will necessitate a higher tax burden unless a spur in economic growth helps to boost the Treasury's coffers. Tom Selby, director of public policy at AJ Bell, said: 'Of course, a lot can happen between now and the Budget and we have a number of economic data points that could influence the Chancellor's decisions come the autumn, but speculation about what may be on the table is naturally already rife. 'Perhaps the most drastic decision the Government could make would be to walk back on its manifesto commitment not to tax 'working people' and consider increasing income tax, national insurance or VAT.' Mr Selby added that ideas for a wealth tax may also be considered, along with speculation of further pensions reform. Another option Ms Reeves could be weighing up is extending the current freeze on income tax thresholds. The Finance Act 2025 extended the freeze on inheritance tax thresholds until 2030 – and the Chancellor will be under pressure to do the same to other allowances and thresholds, too. The latest forecasts suggest eight million workers will be pulled into higher rates of tax by 2028, raising an extra £38bn per year for the Treasury. Extending the threshold would also allow the Chancellor to keep to Labour's manifesto commitment not to raise taxes on working people. Lindsay James, investment strategist at Quilter, said as there were no tax rises in the Spring Statement, investors are expecting to see rises in the autumn Budget if growth continues to 'lag'. Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, made a series of suggestions in a leaked memo – including reinstating the pensions lifetime allowance and removing more inheritance tax reliefs, which were calculated to raise approximately £3bn in total. Chris Etherington, tax partner at RSM UK, added: 'It may already feel pretty claustrophobic at the Treasury, with limited headroom below the fiscal ceiling. The hope will be that economic growth will ease this pressure, and the next few months could be crucial to the Chancellor's plans. 'As it stands, the foundations may need further stabilisation and another sizeable rise in tax receipts to fund that.' Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Marco Rubio condemns UK sanctions on Israeli ministers
The US Secretary of State has condemned Sir Keir Starmer for imposing sanctions on two Israeli politicians over their government's war in Gaza. Marco Rubio has criticised Britain and other nations who on Tuesday announced they would break with the US and sanction two ultra-nationalist Israeli cabinet ministers. The UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway accused Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich of 'inciting violence against the Palestinian people'. Mr Ben-Gvir hit back on Tuesday night, comparing Sir Keir to Neville Chamberlain, the former Prime Minister who was accused of effectively appeasing the Nazis. Mr Rubio said the sanctions 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home, and end the war'. He urged the UK 'not to forget who the real enemy is'. Mr Ben-Gvir, who has called for the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza, responded to Mr Rubio's post on X, saying: 'History will judge the Chamberlains of our time.' America's ambassador to the UK said he fully supported Mr Rubio's comments and added that the sanctions 'impede constructive dialogue'. Under the sanctions, Mr Ben-Gvir, Israel's national security minister, and Mr Smotrich, the finance minister, will be banned from entering the UK. All of their financial assets in Britain will also be frozen. Israel faces growing international criticism over the conduct of its war with Hamas. Last week, the Prime Minister described its actions in Gaza as 'appalling' as aid groups have accused Israeli of blocking food and medicine from entering the territory despite a growing humanitarian crisis. Foreign Office sources told The Telegraph they hoped sanctioning high-profile members of the Israeli government would make clear that the UK was willing to get tough to allow aid into Gaza and to bring about a ceasefire. The sanctions mark a significant break between No 10 and the White House. Donald Trump has lifted sanctions on Israeli settlers and threatened diplomatic action against the International Criminal Court (ICC) as it seeks to investigate Israel for war crimes. The Foreign Office is understood to have informed the US government that the sanctions were coming on Monday night. However, the State Department was not given a chance to object or veto the decision. In a joint statement, the five countries said Mr Ben Gvir and Mr Smotrich 'have incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights'. 'These actions are not acceptable. This is why we have taken action now – to hold those responsible to account,' they added. Gideon Saar, Israel's foreign minister, slammed the sanctions as 'outrageous'. He added: 'I discussed it earlier today with Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, and we will hold a special government meeting early next week to decide on our response to this unacceptable decision.' Mr Smotrich once described all the Arab population of the West Bank as 'Nazis'. Last month, he said Gaza should be 'totally destroyed' and its population evacuated. He also said he would not let a 'grain of wheat' into the territory. David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, said the pair had used 'horrendous extremist language' and that he would 'encourage the Israeli government to disavow and condemn that language'. He has also described the conduct of the Israeli army as 'monstrous' and condemned the actions of 'extremist' settlers in the West Bank. New Zealand's foreign minister insisted the measures were not directed against the Israeli people or government. 'Rather, the travel bans are targeted at two individuals who are using their leadership positions to actively undermine peace and security and remove prospects for a two-state solution,' Winston Peters said. On Tuesday, the US dropped its support for an independent Palestine. Mike Huckabee, America's ambassador to Israel, said a two-state solution was no longer White House policy. He said: 'Unless there are some significant things that happen that change the culture, there's no room for it.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
The White House Is Delighted With Events in Los Angeles
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. The last time President Donald Trump tried to send military forces into American streets to put down civil unrest, in June 2020, Pete Hegseth was positioned outside the White House with a Kevlar helmet and riot shield. Major Hegseth's mobilization as part of a District of Columbia National Guard unit summoned to restore order in the nation's capital, where protests had erupted following the police murder of George Floyd, occurred as Pentagon leaders scrambled to avert what they feared could be a confrontation between active-duty U.S. forces and their fellow Americans. Today, Hegseth is second only to the president in directing the administration's use of the National Guard and active-duty Marines to respond to unrest over immigration raids in Los Angeles. And this time, the military's civilian leadership isn't acting as a brake on Trump's impulse to escalate the confrontation. The Hegseth-led Pentagon is an accelerant. The administration's decision to federalize 4,000 California National Guard forces, contrary to Governor Gavin Newsom's wishes, and to dispatch 700 active-duty Marines to the Los Angeles area, marks a break with decades of tradition under which presidents have limited their use of the military on American soil. If there are any internal misgivings about busting through yet another democratic norm, they haven't surfaced publicly. Indeed, officials at the White House told us they are satisfied with the way the L.A. confrontation has unfolded. They believe that it highlights their focus on immigration and law and order, and places Democrats on the wrong side of both. One widely circulated photo—showing a masked protester standing in front of a burning car, waving a Mexican flag—has been embraced by Trump supporters as a distillation of the conflict: a president unafraid to use force to defend an American city from those he deems foreign invaders. 'We couldn't have scripted this better,' said a senior White House aide granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. 'It's like the 2024 election never ended: Trump is strong while Democrats are weak and defending the indefensible.' Democrats, of course, take a different view, and say the administration's actions have only risked triggering further violence. Retired officers who study how the armed forces have been used in democracies told us they share those concerns. They point to the damage that Trump's orders could do to the military's relationship with the citizens it serves. 'We should be very careful, cautious, and even reluctant to use the military inside our country,' Bradley Bowman, a former Army officer who heads the defense program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, told us. Conor Friedersdorf: Averting a worst-case scenario in Los Angeles State and local authorities typically use law-enforcement personnel as a first response to civil disturbances or riots, followed by National Guard forces if needed. Retired Major General Randy Manner, who served as acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau during the Obama administration, said the federalizing of California Guard forces—putting them under presidential rather than state control, a move allowed with certain limits—pulls those service members away from their civilian jobs and makes it harder to complete planned training or exercises. 'Basically, the risk does not justify the investment of these forces, and it will negatively impact on readiness,' Manner told us. Retired officers we spoke with also drew a distinction between the involvement of National Guard and active-duty forces. Whereas National Guard troops assist citizens after natural disasters and have the advantage of knowing the communities they serve, active-duty forces are primarily trained to 'see the enemy and neutralize the enemy,' said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'When you're dealing with U.S. citizens, no matter what they're doing, that's not the right mindset.' 'This is not Fallujah,' Bowman added. 'This is Los Angeles.' Juliette Kayyem: Trump's gross misuse of the National Guard This morning, Hegseth made his first congressional appearance since his bruising confirmation process, appearing before a House committee. His tone with Democrats was at times combative. When Representative Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat, asked the defense secretary what the cost of the California deployment would be, he declined to provide a figure and instead pivoted to criticism of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for the state's response to the violence that followed Floyd's killing in 2020. (Military officials said later they expected the Los Angeles deployment, as envisioned, to cost roughly $134 million.) 'If you've got millions of illegals, you don't know where they're coming from, they're waving flags from foreign countries and assaulting police officers, that's a problem,' Hegseth told lawmakers. Trump, for his part, told reporters that anyone who tries to protest at the Saturday parade celebrating the 250th birthday of the U.S. Army will 'be met with very big force.' He also said that he wouldn't hesitate to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would permit him to employ the military for law enforcement or to suppress a rebellion, if he believed that circumstances required. Speaking to troops at Fort Bragg in North Carolina later in the day, the president promised to stop the 'anarchy' in California. 'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean, and safe again,' he said. 'We will not allow an American city to be invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy.' Some Republicans have privately expressed worry that Trump may overplay a winning hand. Even in the West Wing, two people we spoke with tried to downplay the incendiary rhetoric from Trump and Hegseth. They stressed that, to this point, National Guard forces have been in a defensive posture, protecting federal buildings. Although they believe that Trump has the political advantage at the moment, they acknowledged there would be real risks if U.S. troops got involved in violence. 'We don't know who would get blamed but no one wins if that happens,' one senior aide told us. 'No one wants to see that.' Hegseth's support for using active-duty troops in Los Angeles stands in contrast to what his predecessor did in 2020. At that time, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, along with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, scrambled to block Trump's desire to employ active-duty forces against the demonstrators protesting racial violence. The president had mused about shooting protesters in the legs, Esper wrote later. To satisfy his boss while also avoiding a dangerous confrontation, the defense chief called active-duty forces from Fort Bragg to Northern Virginia but sought to keep them out of the fray. Tom Nichols: Trump is using the National Guard as bait In his 2024 book The War on Warriors, Hegseth described how his experience as a D.C. Guardsman in 2020 crystallized his views about the divide between military personnel and what he saw as the degenerate protesters who were lobbing bricks and bottles of urine at the citizen soldiers. When the D.C. Guard was again summoned seven months later, to help secure the 2021 inauguration following the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Hegseth was told to stand down because fellow Guardsmen suspected that one of his tattoos was a sign of extremism. (Hegseth has maintained it is part of his Christian faith.) Hegseth was angered by his exclusion and resigned from the Guard. That experience remains with him as he attempts to reshape the military, and its role in society, in line with Trump's worldview. As he has written: 'My trust for this Army is irrevocably broken.' Article originally published at The Atlantic